http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
In recent columns I've noted that the same progressives who make every effort to belittle Christianity, or remove as much of it as possible from the public arena, are equally deferential to, if not outright supportive of, Islam. Why would those who generally disdain religion align themselves with one of the most overtly intrusive religions on the planet? Because the "big picture" ambitions of both groups are remarkably similar: the subjugation of the individual to the collective.

To be fair, Muslim radicals are far less clever than progressives. They make it plain as day that a world subjugated to the Koran as interpreted by Islamic clerics and scholars is their chief ambition. It is a world in which women and non-believers are reduced to second-class status at best, aka dhimmitude, or outright persecution at worst. And it is truly remarkable to see such stalwart components of the progressive movement, most notably feminists, watching in complete silence while Muslims engage in such practices as honor killings, clitoral mutilation, the stoning of rape victims--or the ludicrousness of a New Jersey judge who ruled that a Muslim man could force sex upon his wife because he was "acting in accordance to his cultural beliefs."

When one contrasts that with the vigor these same women reserve for bashing Sarah Palin for innumerable "offenses"--including the "temerity" to give birth to a Down's Syndrome child--one can only marvel at the utter bankruptcy of the so-called feminist movement. Yet it is precisely this odious double-standard which offers a glimpse behind the facade of "tolerance" these women and their fellow progressives show to the world, even as it simultaneously reveals their deepest fears.

Of Islam? Not a chance. Nothing scares progressives more than Christian conservatives.

The people who "cling" to guns, G0d and religion represent threat Numero Uno to the progressive movement. The reason is simple: morally-centered individuals who believe in a power which transcends that of the state, have far less use for that ever-expanding state. They have little interest in the "flexible" morality of progressives, which conveniently extends itself into the realm of a "living" Constitution, without which progressivism would already be sitting atop the ash heap of history. They have little use for those whose worldview is animated by the idea that most people are just too stupid to take care of themselves absent the "beneficent" intrusion of their self-anointed superiors.

How revealing it is that conservatives routinely donate far more of their own money to charity than progressives do, year in and year out. How revealing it is that progressives champion "alternative families," which is arguably the most destructive philosophy in the nation. There isn't a single statistic available which accrues to the benefit of any other social arrangement over that of a stable, two-parent household. There is no shorter path to the kind of chaos--and subsequent need for greater government that such chaos engenders in the minds of progressives--than the destruction of the nuclear family.

Such chaos is the lifeblood of the welfare state. Millions of children untethered to stability, moral structure and clear thinking are a "reasonable" tradeoff for the maintenance of power by those who have now determined that even as basic a parental responsibility as feeding one's children is something "we can't just leave it up to the parents" according to First Lady Michelle Obama. No doubt Monet Parham, a California mother of two children would agree. Parham has filed a lawsuit in conjunction with the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) against MacDonald's for using toys to market their hamburgers. "We have to say no to our kids so many times and McDonald's makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat," she said.

Such "helpless" parents and their unseemly enablers from the CSPI are backbone of the progressive coalition.

Perhaps Ms. Parham, et al, might retain an ounce of credibility were they as concerned with the cultural rot produced by Hollywood and the music business "getting into her kids' heads," or the fact that an abortionist can perform surgery on a minor "without parental permission" in several states. One has to wonder how people like these put the dangers society presents to their children in the proper order.

The burger, the beats or the abortionist, Ms. Parham?

No doubt she has an answer. And no doubt that answer would also illuminate the worldview of someone "acting in accordance to her cultural beliefs."

Beliefs which, like those of the Islamists, must be imposed on those who resist by any means necessary and available.

Coercion is the unifying force behind radical Islam and radical progressivism. Neither group is remotely interested in a "live and let live" approach to life or governance, whether it is the do-good meddlers of the West looking to regulate everything from the food we eat to speech they consider "hateful," or the Islamic jihadists for whom the slightest deviation from the Koran justifies all manner of carnage. Human behavior must be controlled, and individual expression must serve the greater good, whether the individual in question desires to or not.

The primary difference between the two approaches is that progressivism feigns concern for individualism, even as they mock every choice an individual makes when it fails to align with the progressive worldview. Thus, in the paradoxical sense, one is "free"--to be a bigot, a homophobe, a nativist, a sexist or a racist. One is free to be rich so long as one concedes it's "evil" to acquire a level of wealth past a progressively pre-determined threshold. One is free to believe in traditional American values as long as one concedes such values are borne at the expense of a vast sea of historical "victims" whose virtues are inarguably superior--based on nothing more than that victimhood itself.

Individual irresponsibility is simultaneously obscured and absolved by the champions of "social justice," most of whom would never dream of living under the conditions they so easily impose on the great unwashed "for their own good." Perhaps nothing epitomizes such hypocrisy better than progressives' determination to maintain the current model of a unionized public school system that is a demonstrable failure, even as many of their own children are tucked away in private academies. Save for the destruction of the nuclear family, nothing provides better fodder for progressivism than semi-educated children.

So too, for Islamic fundamentalism. There's nothing quite like teaching younger generations that Paradise awaits the mass murderer of "infidels" as part of, or lieu of, a genuine curriculum. How ironic that so many terrorists end up completing their education at Western universities, many of which seamlessly weave the same contempt for Western values into a college "education." All movements seeking to undermine the individual need a steady supply true believers. True believers who are told a better life is just around the bend as long as they remain committed to the cause.

The cause? In both cases, the collective enslavement of mankind.

Conservatism and Christianity are the last bastions of defense against both movements, which is why they must be taken on first. Thus, the enemy of my enemy is my friend until Christians and conservatives are vanquished. And what seems like an impossible alliance becomes infinitely easier to understand. During WWll, it would have been impossible to imagine FDR telling the American people that "most Germans and Japanese were peace-loving people," or that the "majority of people in both nations were on our side." Today, such sentiments regarding Muslims are routinely promoted, absent any compelling evidence that they are true. And to be fair, those sentiments are not wholly owned by progressives. There are more than a few useful idiots among conservatives willing to toe the politically correct line. If there weren't, our southern border wouldn't be a sieve and we wouldn't be screening or groping 85-year old grandmas at airports.

Perhaps there has been some massive embrace of Western values, or a large-scale resistance movement against Islamic fascism undertaken by so-called moderate Muslims--that has gone unreported by the media--but I am not privy to it. As a result, I remain unconvinced that the "overwhelming majority" of Muslims are on our side. I suspect fearfully neutral is the best we can hope for. And one can only imagine if such people exist in substantial numbers what they must think of an American progressive movement which enables their radical co-religionists.

In the meantime, the mystery of why progressives would support a permanent mosque near Ground Zero, even as they would object to a temporary creche erected at the same location during Christmas, should be mysterious no longer. Every political movement must prioritize its opponents, with the strongest meriting the most attention. Both radical Islamists and progressives know it is not each other they have to worry about initially. Conservatives and Christians are the primary target, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Such is worth remembering when members of the former group kill 46 Christians in Iraq and call it "justice"--and members of the latter group see Christ on the cross covered in ants at the Smithsonian and call it "art."

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.